Re: Ditching lopperlative version 2

[mark sottilaro <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com>]

I totally agree.  It's not a judgement call, it's just
more a matter of personal choice.  Bob's been great
and so had the Looperlative.  I'm just rethinking of
how I want to work with a looper in my world.

You mention that you couldn't afford to buy one.  It
was pretty hard for me too which is why I'm rethinking
this.  Do I really need a second hardware looper when
I have a perfectly servicable Repeater?


--- jayrope <jrploopers@kliklak.net> wrote:

> >  I am afraid I didnšt read further before, sorry
> for dissing you here mark.
> > 
> > I do undertand your reasons now.
> > 
> > still I believe, that the looperlative will be a
> very cool machine ­ in the
> > end ­ and the more imprtant questions is, if
> therešs any way of finding bob
> > co-developpers to help him and expand the idea of
> this great thing
> > 
> > so
> > jayrope -  berlin
> > 
> > From: mark sottilaro <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> > Subject: Re: LP1 Rant warning! (was Re:
> Looperlative LP1 testers)
> > 
> > Hey,
> > 
> > I'm thinking of staying with my Repeater and
> ditching
> > the Looperlative.  Bob's offered to take it back
> but I
> > imagine he'll just sell it for his $1500 price. 
> I'm
> > not looking to make money on this, but I'd like to
> > retreive my full purchase amount.  $1320 gets it
> > shipped to your door if you're in the USA.
> > 
> > M
> > 
> > --- mark t <aleatoric12@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > If you want to sell your LP1 i'll take it!
> >> > 
> >> > On 5/2/06, mark sottilaro
> >> > <zerocrossing2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > > --- Claude Voit <c.voit@vtx.ch> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>>> > > > having followed the LP1 forum for a
> while, I'm a
> >>>> > > > little bothered with the
> >>>> > > > "throw in your ideas, boys" way of
> develloping a
> >>>> > > > software.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Boy howdy, Claude!!  At first I thought,
> "what a
> >> > great
> >>> > > idea, go to the people!" and then reality
> set in.
> >>> > > People are self absorbed jerks!  I'm a self
> >> > absorbed
> >>> > > jerk! I'm shocked that Bob's not gone crazy
> by
> >> > this
> >>> > > point.  I can't wait for the "let's change
> the
> >> > logo
> >>> > > thread!" ;)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I can't help but feel that in some ways,
> maybe due
> >> > to
> >>> > > his design by customer input, that I bought
> a beta
> >>> > > product.  The manual is poor (many features
> are
> >> > barely
> >>> > > mentioned, let alone explained, if it wasn't
> for
> >> > Steve
> >>> > > Lawson on the forum I probably would have
> returned
> >> > the
> >>> > > LP-1), it's got outputs that aren't
> implemented in
> >> > any
> >>> > > way and did ship with a fair amount of bugs.
> (many
> >>> > > have already been found and fixed) Was a
> night of
> >> > my
> >>> > > life wasted because v 1.1 refered to midi
> channels
> >> > as
> >>> > > 0-15?  Yes it was.  Another gone because the
> midi
> >>> > > clock sync didn't work?  Yeah, that too. 
> Another
> >> > gone
> >>> > > because stopped tracks don't restart synced
> to the
> >>> > > clock...
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Also, because of it's very open yet
> unfinished
> >> > form
> >>> > > I'm one of those frustrated owners.  It's a
> tweak
> >> > away
> >>> > > from being my dream looper. (there's
> curently no
> >> > way
> >>> > > to use the midi tracks as separate loops
> when
> >> > synced
> >>> > > to a midi clock and have them operate like
> the EDP
> >> > or
> >>> > > the Repeater does, toggling betwen them)
> Judging
> >> > from
> >>> > > what I read on the forum you could operate
> it that
> >>> > > way.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > If this was a product from a company like
> Roland
> >> > or
> >>> > > Digitech, it would have been returned. 
> Mostly
> >> > when
> >>> > > those companies release a product it is what
> it
> >> > is.
> >>> > > I'd have said, "Oh, this product does't
> operate
> >> > like I
> >>> > > want it to.  Bye bye."  But now I have a
> product
> >> > that
> >>> > > *may* change into what I want.  This is kind
> of
> >> > odd,
> >>> > > as rather than digging into if for what it
> is (a
> >> > very
> >>> > > cool multi track looper), I can't help but
> think
> >> > of
> >>> > > what it isn't and might be.  LOOP TEASE!
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Will my tweak come?  I don't know.  I've put
> in
> >>> > > several requests but never got a "oh that's
> slated
> >> > in
> >>> > > the next release" or "no, that's not doable
> at
> >> > this
> >>> > > time" reply.  The reply was "When it comes
> to
> >> > multiple
> >>> > > tracks, especially when combined with MIDI
> sync,
> >> > we
> >>> > > will need to spend more time defining how
> you want
> >> > the
> >>> > > software to work. The software is still
> young and
> >> > I'd
> >>> > > be happy to make changes to make operate in
> a
> >> > useable
> >>> > > fashion."  How much time?  Do I be patient? 
> I
> >> > don't
> >>> > > develop hardware/software loopers so I have
> no
> >> > idea
> >>> > > what it takes in terms of time to implement
> >> > features.
> >>> > > Maybe my request isn't worth Bob's time as
> I'm one
> >> > of
> >>> > > few that even care about this.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > As it stands now it's mostly useless to me
> *but I
> >>> > > couldn't know that based on prerelease
> >> > information*
> >>> > > It's not even in my signal chain.  I know
> I'm
> >> > ranting
> >>> > > (I'm a good ranter, eh?) but $1200 left my
> bank
> >> > acount
> >>> > > on something that's sitting on a shelf.  Do
> I
> >> > wait?
> >>> > > How long?  Bob has been amazing and patient,
> but
> >> > part
> >>> > > of me wishs that a bit more time was spent
> in
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com